Now more than 50 years later, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Washington needs Islamabad more than Pakistan needs the United States. Even after the death of Osama bin Laden, the Americans remain apprehensive about the harm Islamic extremists could do to its economic and political interests around the globe. Terrorism experts believe that Pakistan is now the epicenter of international terrorism inspired by Islamic fundamentalists. But Pakistan is not alone; there are other even more unsettled places around the world — Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia to name three but perhaps also Libya, Iraq, and Syria if the current unrest in these countries cannot be brought under control — that could become exporters of terrorist activities. America and Europe are keen on throwing a fence around this troubled area and both believe that Pakistan could be a critical partner in such an enterprise. Pakistan, however, would like to partner but on its own terms.
There are at least three items in Pakistan’s term sheet for cooperation with the West. The first is that the announced pull out from Afghanistan by the United States should not leave a regime in Kabul that would be openly hostile to Pakistan. There was such a regime in place for 30 years, from 1947 (the year of Pakistan’s founding) and 1978 (the year the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan). Then Kabul campaigned actively for the creation of an autonomous Pakhtun state that would extend to the western bank of the Indus River. It would also not want an Afghan government that was very closely aligned with India. That said, the change in thinking on security issues in Islamabad does not preclude a tripartite arrangement involving Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, in which all three countries work together to collectively promote their economic interests. Building of cross-country pipelines would be an important part of such an arrangement. Sustainable economic growth at reasonable rates will not be possible in mainland South Asia, unless a way is found to resolve critical shortages of energy. One way of doing this is to import natural gas through pipelines that would connect the area with energy-surplus Central Asia and the Middle East.
The second item on the Pakistani term-sheet, is to ensure a steady flow of foreign capital to augment its very low levels of domestic savings. Even if the country embarks on a structural adjustment program that would bring about increases in the rate of domestic savings and tax-to-GDP ratio, foreign flows would still be required for many years into the future. In that context the United States has been an unreliable partner.
The third item is Pakistan’s requirements that the United States desists from those acts that add to the state of fragility in the country. Some of the US sponsored activities in recent months fall into this category. For instance, CIA agents are operating freely in Pakistan — as The Economist wrote in a recent issue there were “CIA agents who roamed across cities without the oversight of local intelligence agencies.” One of them — a man by the name of Raymond Davis — murdered two individuals in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street. He was let go after spending several weeks in a Pakistani jail. The same issue of the magazine expressed surprise at the gathering in the compound of the American embassy in Islamabad of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. It wrote: “Even at the best of time it would have been unusual for America’s embassy in Islamabad to organise (such a meet). Given the grim state of bilateral relations, the meeting looked downright provocative. Some in Pakistan’s religiously conservative society accused America of conspiring to attack them by spreading outrageously liberal sexual views. One Islamic political party called it ‘cultural terrorism’”.
Most in Pakistan, including the country’s civilian leadership and the military establishment, believe that an alternative is available to which Islamabad could now turn more openly. In recent months, a number of senior people from Pakistan have gone to Beijing hoping to cultivate a relationship that will be more durable and less demanding. This year Pakistan will be celebrating the fiftieth year of the establishment of a formal relationship with China. This will be done with great fanfare and will no doubt bring in more indications of Chinese economic help and military support. To distinguish its relations with Beijing, Pakistan has begun to call it an ‘all-weather friendship’. Three weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden, Ahmad Mukhtar, Pakistan’s defence minister announced that China would take over the management of Gwadar, a deep-water Pakistani port on the Arabian Sea. The port is currently managed by a company from Singapore. But there was some confusion about what had transpired. According to one western newspaper, “the government in Beijing said the Gwadar takeover had come as news to China”. Even if the claims Pakistan was making about China’s interest in their country are somewhat exaggerated, it is clear that a tilt has occurred. There cannot be any doubt that Islamabad was moving away from the United States and was leaning towards China. Such a move will have profound implications not only for South Asia but for the evolving world political order as well.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2011.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Pakistan needs to strenghthen its institutions by aggressive accountability and transparency.This process by itself can strengthen the country both economically and politically.
@Subhash, India:
look at the noises you make when a pro bangladesh govt takes chanrge in Dhaka.You are very happy with the awami league which is seen by many Bangla deshis as very pro india in fact a stooge of India.
Pakistan has made serious sacrfices both interms of its security,economically and loosing thousands of its citizens for the sake of afghans and itself. Pakistan will just sit and watch an afghan goverment threaten its staqbility at the behest of anti pakistan elements coerced by foreign powers.
Afghans are a bitterly divided country and have been influenced by its neighbours since the days of the One of the lessons from its past is to make it a viable nation that incorporates all the ethnic groups so they can build their nation.Making afghans hate their neighbours is not the solution.
@gopal:
There is another argument to your feeble point ie India wants an anti Pakistan puppet regime in kabul to threaten Pakistan on both sides of its borders.They intend to continue to use their counsulates in eastern Afghanistan to sabotage and destabilise Balochistan province.
As far as Pak Afghan relations are concerned both countries need to bring out all outstanding disputes on the table and while acknowledging each others concerns finalise an agreement that builds their relationship and stabilise both countries.
As far as pakistans cultural strength is concerned more then 40% of the afghan population is culturally and linguistically the same as on Pakistans western provinces specifically Khyber pukhtun. Economically Pakistan has been hit hard by the foreign occupation of afghanistan and its consequences. Only a political solution and withdrawl of outside forces will bring the region back to more stability and make environment safe for economy to grow.
Can you please mention one positive thing you did as vice president of world bank and as Pakistan finance minister which changed our lives in Pakistan? The article should have began like this, "The situation in which Pakistan finds itself today is because of leaders like me".. Do you remember that long time ago you opposed an industry which was most essential for our industrial growth and prosperity. The problem is not USA or China, its our short memory and leaders like you.
The only other country thats fully dependent on China is North korea.
So it is ok for Pakistan to deman a friendly goverment in Afghanistan who should not fight for Pakhtun's right? I find it really skewed thinking that Pakistan who considers itself to be a biggest supporter of freedom and right of self determination, tries to poke the nose in to neighbouring country's internal affairs.
So pakistan supporting China is going to be profound impact on world order, I just remembered an ant vs elephant joke after reading this statement.
@Sajida You seems to be a strategic thinker. Here you are advising USA to educate their kids, on another blog you had advised India to take care of irrigation needs of its population, do you have some nuggets of wisdom for Pakistan also? Or Pakistan is doing fine on most of the aspects?
Just straight to the point. How would you feel if we in India say " We do not want a govt in Pakistan which is hostile to India", let Afghans be the masters of their own nation w/o too much of interference from outsiders like Pakistan's ISI which brought nothing but only disasters to both Afghanistan & Pakistan.
A finance man is not the best choice to give advise on Foreign affairs. This can be confirmed by the fossilised thinking that the US needs Pakistan, not the other way round. His affinity for China is commendable but the country is unlikely to get any free doles from that direction. The first requirement of any Foreign policy is that it must command respect from the International community. Author has failed to enumerate the reasons for Failures so he is unlikely to have an effective remedy to overcome them, or provide an alternative discourse.
Amazing - Logic is that "Us is confronted by terrorists and needs Pakistan's help to tackle them". Why because the terrorists are in Pakistan or have got strong linkages there. But what about Pakistan - is it OK with having so many terrorists with strong links to it and residing within its territory. If yes, then Pakistan itself is the problem. if not, then Pakistan needs US more than US needs Pak
Keep dreaming. At best it is wish list and sour grapes. People who compare America and China are living in fool’s paradise. China’s per capita income is under 8,000 dollars while the US is over 40,000. China still has a long long wait to catch up to the US. Regarding investing in Pakistan, even the Pakistanis do not invest their money in Pakistan let alone Western countries coming out for investment. China is a great country to provide Pakistan with their sub standard civilian and military goods cheap. However, who is going to supply the spare parts of F-16 and other US equipment? No country in the world is and should provide any help/aid to a country with enough money to have more than hundred nuclear warheads. There is not a single country that has hundreds of such weapons and is a beggar at the same time. Pakistanis have to decide whether they are a nuclear blackmailer or a beggar. Perhaps experts like you have a job to do but what do I know?
Dear Author,
"Now more than 50 years later, it would not be an exaggeration to say that Washington needs Islamabad more than Pakistan needs the United States. ..."
Sorry sir, your statement born out of wishful thinking is not in sync with ground realities. Indications are growing clearer day by day : US does not need Pakistan any more, and definitely not after 2014 when the Afghan drawdown will be complete and there will be NIL dependence on Pak for the NATO route. Why would US need Pakistan after it withdraws from Afghanistan?
Will you please elaborate on what benefits US will get in being friends with Pakistan? As you might know, Washington has reconciled itself to the fact that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism but what it is finding to digest that US has been taken for a ride all these days by their 'so called ally'.
People don't mind paying to get value-for-money but no one likes to be cheated and being made a fool of. Not only Pak has made a fool of US all these days, but, what is galling is that, they have made a virtue out of US bashing, by orchestrating hate-campaigns through willing media. On the one hand, you take money to run your country, and on the other hand, you feed people who shout 'Death to US' at the slightest provocation.
If you are watching the scenes unfolding, for example, the arrest of Fai and if you are reading between the lines of the statements being given regularly by Hillary Clinton and Gen Petraeus, it is clear that US is looking for a final denouement with Pakistan. Pakistan is not a good market, not a great investment destination, and an unreliable and shady ally to pursue geo-political interests.
So, please for God's sake, don't mislead people and lull them into a sense of false security that US needs Pakistan and hence, would continue to fund Pakistan. Majority of people in Pakistan hate US and US is going to do respect their wishes by ceasing to matter in their lives.
The result: the gravy train will be coming to a halt in 2014, and you should prepare people to handle this scenario. Anything else, is just plain wishful thinking.
Does US have some obligation to give free money to Pakistan ? No
Best thing is for both countries to go their separate ways.
When Pakistan says that they don't want a pro-India regime in Kabul, they really mean that they want an anti-Indian dispensation that would allow anti-India Kashmiri groups to operate there. In effect, what Pakistan wants is not a friendly government but puppet regime in Kabul. This is unlikely to be a stable situation because Pakistan lacks the economic or cultural strength to dominate Afghanistan.
Islamic militants are funded by ME money all over the world. They are even funding US Muslim fundamentalist propagation. America knows this. There was a congressional testimony given regarding this during the Bush Government era. The militants are also supported by ME money in Pakistan. US is in a strange stage of evolution. Its leaders are stuck in a past era mindset, when the new generation is already in the cradle. This new generation will determine what international presence America can afford. If America doesn't improve education system for its poor within 5 years-when they will start school, America's future will be cast. It will not have the funds to support a large military presence or the expenses on its military and related industries. A far sighted government would prepare;but, America is constrained by short term thinking. It is a tragedy for America and its friends.
The fact that the Chinese spokesman rebutted what our defense minister said and you still see the silver lining is more wishful thinking than anything based on fact.
Do factor in that China needs America as well. China can ill afford a further decline in the US economy that will devalue its massive holdings of US debt. In the vicious circle of US-China relations Pakistan is frankly not that important, and China is not going to rock the bottom vis a vis China-US relations for our benefit.
As long as the Pakistani elite prefer to send their children to US universities, go their for holidays, immigration and health checks. Absorb Anglo-American goods and services, culture and media, there will be no "leaning towards China".
The problem here is not the US or China or India. The problem here is that our debates have been reduced to whether she would be allied to Camp A or Camp B or Camp C. Never anything on what we ourselves should be doing, whether we should be paying our taxes, making efforts to improve the rule of law etc. Instead we are waiting on the largess's of foreign powers.
US-China trade is worth 400 billion dollars and China holds over 1 trillion dollars’ worth US T bills. Pakistan has little bearing on US China relations. Chinese are wise people; they will never sacrifice their economic interests for vague geopolitical reasons. China only offered verbal support during the 1965 and 1971 war. It advised the army to retreat from the hills during the Kargil war. Privately China has always asked Pakistan to cooperate with US on the war on terror. China has never given much aid to Pakistan, and our bilateral trade with China runs into a deficit. China can help Pakistan reduce its trade deficit by not dumping low quality products in our markets.